Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (low) vs GLM 5.2 (high)

Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (low) leads on average score with 8.2 vs 8.0. GLM 5.2 (high) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.972 vs $3.113. GLM 5.2 (high) is faster at 62.65s vs 132.39s, with pass rates of 78.8% vs 71.2%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-12

Rank
#46
Total Output Tokens
554,485
Response Time (avg)
132.39s
Total Cost
$3.113
Rank
#52
Total Output Tokens
295,347
Response Time (avg)
62.65s
Total Cost
$0.972
Recommended model GLM 5.2 (high)

Its score stays close to the best score here (8.0 vs 8.2), while costing about 3.2x less than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B (low).

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B low Release: 2026-08-12 GLM 5.2 GLM 5.2 high Release: 2026-06-17
Score 8.2 8.0
Rank #46 #52
Reliability 9.1 10.0
Consistency 8.9 8.6
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 78.8% 71.2%
Flaky tests 3 3
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 19.453 5.873
Total Cost $3.113 $0.972
Input Price $2.000 / 1M $0.500 / 1M
Output Price $6.000 / 1M $3.150 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 113,340 83,813
Output Tokens 107,311 69,688
Reasoning Tokens 447,174 225,659
Response Time (avg) 132.39s 62.65s
Response Time (max) 534.21s 599.43s
Response Time (total) 2912.56s 1378.34s
Parameters 2.4T total (95B active) 744B total (40B active)
Availability Weights available Open source

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#46 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B

low
Cost
$0.100
Time
193.2s
Tokens
16,767 tok

#52 GLM 5.2

high
Invalid SVG
Cost
$0.000
Time
300.0s
Tokens
0 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 7.6 7.2 77.8% 1 172.53s 6,716 21,405 57,399
GLM 5.2 6.4 8.6 33.3% 0 73.03s 5,124 2,302 22,546

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair

GPT-5.2 ChatnonevsGLM 5.2highStep 3.7 FlashmediumvsGLM 5.2highMuse Glimmer 30BxhighvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowGPT-5 MinimediumvsGLM 5.2highGPT-5 MinimediumvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowInklingmediumvsGLM 5.2highKimi K3maxvsGLM 5.2highMuse Spark 1.1highvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowGemini 2.5 FlashmediumvsQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowvsInklinghighQwen3.8 2.4T A95BlowvsStep 3.7 FlashmediumGPT-5.2 ChatnonevsQwen3.8 2.4T A95Blow